Re: more struggle with the buoyancy principle for our brilliant hydrogeologist.
- From: auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian)
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:50:33 +0200
George <George@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Florian" <auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1inzz47.he57vxkl6wvmN%auxotectonics_deletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Moron. Fat is less dense than water.
How many fatasses sank to the bottom of the ocean inside the Titanic?
Said idiot, that got trapped like a rat.
And there is certainly one. Period.
Really? Perhaps you could enlighten the planet as to what that one is?
Idiot. Don't you understand that scientists do not know everything? Only
crank can imagine that scientist know everything but simply want to hide
it.
you can't read, the answer to the question was in the text embeded in
the term "buoyancy", because if you had basic education, you would know
that as soon as one evoke buoyancy, then gravity is involved, as there
is no buoyancy without gravity.
No one is claiming otherwise, Floppy.
You do moron, by separating both.
I didn't separate anything.
You did by claiming that gravity could overcome buoyancy, as if gravity
was opposed to buoyancy. All parts of the system are subject to gravity,
including the fluid, and that is the reason why there is buoyancy.
Without gravitational attraction of the fluid, no buoyancy. You fail to
understand that basic principle because you are an idiot.
--
Florian
"Toute vérité franchit trois étapes. D'abord elle est ridiculisée.
Ensuite, elle subit une forte opposition. Puis, elle est considérée
comme ayant toujours été une évidence." - Arthur Schopenhauer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Where did the extra mass come from?
- Next by Date: sinking iceberg.
- Previous by thread: Re: more struggle with the buoyancy principle for our brilliant hydrogeologist.
- Next by thread: Re: more struggle with the buoyancy principle for our brilliant hydrogeologist.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
